Harms of off-label erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for critically ill people

Influence of data disclosures on physician decisions about off-label uses: findings from a qualitative study

Background

Prescribing approved products for unapproved uses (off-label use) is not uncommon among physicians in certain medical specialties. Available evidence about an off-label use – both supportive and unsupportive – can influence prescribers’ decisions about a drug’s appropriateness for a particular case. The objectives of this study were: (1) to examine physician perceptions about off-label uses generally, including their awareness of unsupportive data; and (2) to explore the influence of disclosure information about unsupportive data on off-label prescribing decisions.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted between December 2019 and January 2020 with oncologists (n = 35) and primary care physicians (n = 35). Interviews explored general prescribing practices, understanding of and information sources for learning about off-label use of prescription drugs, awareness of unsupportive data related to off-label uses, and preferences and reactions to disclosure statements about the existence of unsupportive data related to an off-label use.

Results

Most participants reported prescribing drugs for off-label uses (with half reporting regular off-label prescribing). However, among those who prescribe off-label, approximately two-thirds had never seen unsupportive data about off-label uses. Physicians preferred a disclosure statement that provided a summary of the unsupportive data about the off-label use; this statement also led most physicians to say they were unlikely or less likely to prescribe the drug for that use.

Conclusions

This study suggests that physicians’ decision-making about prescribing for off-label uses of approved drugs may be influenced by awareness of unsupportive data. Our interviews also suggest that providing more information about unsupportive study findings may result in a reduction in reported prescribing likelihood.

An empirical evaluation of the impact scenario of pooling bodies of evidence from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in medical research

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies are the most common study design types used to assess treatment effects of medical interventions. We aimed to hypothetically pool bodies of evidence (BoE) from RCTs with matched BoE from cohort studies included in the same systematic review.

METHODS

BoE derived from systematic reviews of RCTs and cohort studies published in the 13 medical journals with the highest impact factor were considered. We re-analyzed effect estimates of the included systematic reviews by pooling BoE from RCTs with BoE from cohort studies using random and common effects models. We evaluated statistical heterogeneity, 95% prediction intervals, weight of BoE from RCTs to the pooled estimate, and whether integration of BoE from cohort studies modified the conclusion from BoE of RCTs.

RESULTS

Overall, 118 BoE-pairs based on 653 RCTs and 804 cohort studies were pooled. By pooling BoE from RCTs and cohort studies with a random effects model, for 61 (51.7%) out of 118 BoE-pairs, the 95% confidence interval (CI) excludes no effect. By pooling BoE from RCTs and cohort studies, the median I² was 48%, and the median contributed percentage weight of RCTs to the pooled estimates was 40%. The direction of effect between BoE from RCTs and pooled effect estimates was mainly concordant (79.7%). The integration of BoE from cohort studies modified the conclusion (by examining the 95% CI) from BoE of RCTs in 32 (27%) of the 118 BoE-pairs, but the direction of effect was mainly concordant (88%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide insights for the potential impact of pooling both BoE in systematic reviews. In medical research, it is often important to rely on both evidence of RCTs and cohort studies to get a whole picture of an investigated intervention-disease association. A decision for or against pooling different study designs should also always take into account, for example, PI/ECO similarity, risk of bias, coherence of effect estimates, and also the trustworthiness of the evidence. Overall, there is a need for more research on the influence of those issues on potential pooling.

Adverse events of iron and/or erythropoiesis-stimulating agent therapy in preoperatively anemic elective surgery patients: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Iron supplementation and erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) administration represent the hallmark therapies in preoperative anemia treatment, as reflected in a set of evidence-based treatment recommendations made during the 2018 International Consensus Conference on Patient Blood Management. However, little is known about the safety of these therapies. This systematic review investigated the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) during or after treatment with iron and/or ESAs.

METHODS

Five databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Transfusion Evidence Library, Web of Science) and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP) were searched until 23 May 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort, and case-control studies investigating any AE during or after iron and/or ESA administration in adult elective surgery patients with preoperative anemia were eligible for inclusion and judged using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools. The GRADE approach was used to assess the overall certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Data from 26 RCTs and 16 cohort studies involving a total of 6062 patients were extracted, on 6 treatment comparisons: (1) intravenous (IV) versus oral iron, (2) IV iron versus usual care/no iron, (3) IV ferric carboxymaltose versus IV iron sucrose, (4) ESA+iron versus control (placebo and/or iron, no treatment), (5) ESA+IV iron versus ESA+oral iron, and (6) ESA+IV iron versus ESA+IV iron (different ESA dosing regimens). Most AE data concerned mortality/survival (n=24 studies), thromboembolic (n=22), infectious (n=20), cardiovascular (n=19) and gastrointestinal (n=14) AEs. Very low certainty evidence was assigned to all but one outcome category. This uncertainty results from both the low quantity and quality of AE data due to the high risk of bias caused by limitations in the study design, data collection, and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

It remains unclear if ESA and/or iron therapy is associated with AEs in preoperatively anemic elective surgery patients. Future trial investigators should pay more attention to the systematic collection, measurement, documentation, and reporting of AE data.

Evaluating agreement between bodies of evidence from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies in medical research: a meta-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies are the most common study design types used to assess the treatment effects of medical interventions. To evaluate the agreement of effect estimates between bodies of evidence (BoE) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies and to identify factors associated with disagreement.

METHODS

Systematic reviews were published in the 13 medical journals with the highest impact factor identified through a MEDLINE search. BoE-pairs from RCTs and cohort studies with the same medical research question were included. We rated the similarity of PI/ECO (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison, Outcome) between BoE from RCTs and cohort studies. The agreement of effect estimates across BoE was analyzed by pooling ratio of ratios (RoR) for binary outcomes and difference of mean differences for continuous outcomes. We performed subgroup analyses to explore factors associated with disagreements.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-nine BoE pairs from 64 systematic reviews were included. PI/ECO-similarity degree was moderate: two BoE pairs were rated as "more or less identical"; 90 were rated as "similar but not identical" and 37 as only "broadly similar". For binary outcomes, the pooled RoR was 1.04 (95% CI 0.97-1.11) with considerable statistical heterogeneity. For continuous outcomes, differences were small. In subgroup analyses, degree of PI/ECO-similarity, type of intervention, and type of outcome, the pooled RoR indicated that on average, differences between both BoE were small. Subgroup analysis by degree of PI/ECO-similarity revealed high statistical heterogeneity and wide prediction intervals across PI/ECO-dissimilar BoE pairs.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, the pooled effect estimates between RCTs and cohort studies did not differ. Statistical heterogeneity and wide prediction intervals were mainly driven by PI/ECO-dissimilarities (i.e., clinical heterogeneity) and cohort studies. The potential influence of risk of bias and certainty of the evidence on differences of effect estimates between RCTs and cohort studies needs to be explored in upcoming meta-epidemiological studies.

Early Post-Hospitalization Hemoglobin Recovery and Clinical Outcomes in Survivors of Critical Illness: A Population-Based Cohort Study

Anemia is common during critical illness, is associated with adverse clinical outcomes, and often persists after hospitalization. The goal of this investigation is to assess the relationships between post-hospitalization hemoglobin recovery and clinical outcomes after survival of critical illness. This is a population-based observational study of adults (≥18 years) surviving hospitalization for critical illness between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2016 in Olmsted County, Minnesota, United States with hemoglobin concentrations and clinical outcomes assessed through one-year post-hospitalization. Multi-state proportional hazards models were utilized to assess the relationships between 1-month post-hospitalization hemoglobin recovery and hospital readmission or death through one-year after discharge. Among 6460 patients that survived hospitalization for critical illness during the study period, 2736 (42%) were alive, not hospitalized, and had available hemoglobin concentrations assessed at 1-month post-index hospitalization. Median (interquartile range) age was 69 (56, 80) years with 54% of male gender. Overall, 86% of patients had anemia at the time of hospital discharge, with median discharge hemoglobin concentrations of 10.2 (9.1, 11.6) g/dL. In adjusted analyses, each 1 g/dL increase in 1-month hemoglobin recovery was associated with decreased instantaneous hazard for hospital readmission (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.84-0.90]; p < 0.001) and lower mortality (HR 0.82 [95% CI 0.75-0.89]; p < 0.001) through one-year post-hospitalization. The results were consistent in multiple pre-defined sensitivity analyses. Impaired early post-hospitalization hemoglobin recovery is associated with inferior clinical outcomes in the first year of survival after critical illness. Additional investigations are warranted to evaluate these relationships.

Addressing the 'hypoxia paradox' in severe COVID-19: literature review and report of four cases treated with erythropoietin analogues

BACKGROUND

Since fall 2019, SARS-CoV-2 spread world-wide, causing a major pandemic with estimated ~ 220 million subjects affected as of September 2021. Severe COVID-19 is associated with multiple organ failure, particularly of lung and kidney, but also grave neuropsychiatric manifestations. Overall mortality reaches > 2%. Vaccine development has thrived in thus far unreached dimensions and will be one prerequisite to terminate the pandemic. Despite intensive research, however, few treatment options for modifying COVID-19 course/outcome have emerged since the pandemic outbreak. Additionally, the substantial threat of serious downstream sequelae, called 'long COVID' and 'neuroCOVID', becomes increasingly evident. Among candidates that were suggested but did not yet receive appropriate funding for clinical trials is recombinant human erythropoietin. Based on accumulating experimental and clinical evidence, erythropoietin is expected to (1) improve respiration/organ function, (2) counteract overshooting inflammation, (3) act sustainably neuroprotective/neuroregenerative. Recent counterintuitive findings of decreased serum erythropoietin levels in severe COVID-19 not only support a relative deficiency of erythropoietin in this condition, which can be therapeutically addressed, but also made us coin the term 'hypoxia paradox'. As we review here, this paradox is likely due to uncoupling of physiological hypoxia signaling circuits, mediated by detrimental gene products of SARS-CoV-2 or unfavorable host responses, including microRNAs or dysfunctional mitochondria. Substitution of erythropoietin might overcome this 'hypoxia paradox' caused by deranged signaling and improve survival/functional status of COVID-19 patients and their long-term outcome. As supporting hints, embedded in this review, we present 4 male patients with severe COVID-19 and unfavorable prognosis, including predicted high lethality, who all profoundly improved upon treatment which included erythropoietin analogues.

SHORT CONCLUSION

Substitution of EPO may-among other beneficial EPO effects in severe COVID-19-circumvent downstream consequences of the 'hypoxia paradox'. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial for proof-of-concept is warranted.

Impact of treating iron deficiency, diagnosed according to hepcidin quantification, on outcomes after a prolonged ICU stay compared to standard care: a multicenter, randomized, single-blinded trial

BACKGROUND

Anemia is a significant problem in patients on ICU. Its commonest cause, iron deficiency (ID), is difficult to diagnose in the context of inflammation. Hepcidin is a new marker of ID. We aimed to assess whether hepcidin levels would accurately guide treatment of ID in critically ill anemic patients after a prolonged ICU stay and affect the post-ICU outcomes.

METHODS

In a controlled, single-blinded, multicenter study, anemic (WHO definition) critically ill patients with an ICU stay ≥ 5 days were randomized when discharge was expected to either intervention by hepcidin treatment protocol or control. In the intervention arm, patients were treated with intravenous iron (1 g of ferric carboxymaltose) when hepcidin was < 20 μg/l and with intravenous iron and erythropoietin for 20 ≤ hepcidin < 41 μg/l. Control patients were treated according to standard care (hepcidin quantification remained blinded). Primary endpoint was the number of days spent in hospital 90 days after ICU discharge (post-ICU LOS). Secondary endpoints were day 15 anemia, day 30 fatigue, day 90 mortality and 1-year survival.

RESULTS

Of 405 randomized patients, 399 were analyzed (201 in intervention and 198 in control arm). A total of 220 patients (55%) had ID at discharge (i.e., a hepcidin < 41 μg/l). Primary endpoint was not different (medians (IQR) post-ICU LOS 33(13;90) vs. 33(11;90) days for intervention and control, respectively, median difference - 1(- 3;1) days, p = 0.78). D90 mortality was significantly lower in intervention arm (16(8%) vs 33(16.6%) deaths, absolute risk difference - 8.7 (- 15.1 to - 2.3)%, p = 0.008, OR 95% IC, 0.46, 0.22-0.94, p = 0.035), and one-year survival was improved (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Treatment of ID diagnosed according to hepcidin levels did not reduce the post-ICU LOS, but was associated with a significant reduction in D90 mortality and with improved 1-year survival in critically ill patients about to be discharged after a prolonged stay.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrial.gov NCT02276690 (October 28, 2014; retrospectively registered).

Management and prevention of anemia (acute bleeding excluded) in adult critical care patients

Objective

Anemia is very common in critical care patients, on admission (affecting about two-thirds of patients), but also during and after their stay, due to repeated blood loss, the effects of inflammation on erythropoiesis, a decreased red blood cell life span, and haemodilution. Anemia is associated with severity of illness and length of stay.

Methods

A committee composed of 16 experts from four scientific societies, SFAR, SRLF, SFTS and SFVTT, evaluated three fields: (1) anemia prevention, (2) transfusion strategies and (3) non-transfusion treatment of anemia. Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Analysis of the literature and formulation of recommendations were then conducted according to the GRADE^® methodology.

Results

The SFAR–SRLF guideline panel provided ten statements concerning the management of anemia in adult critical care patients. Acute haemorrhage and chronic anemia were excluded from the scope of these recommendations. After two rounds of discussion and various amendments, a strong consensus was reached for ten recommendations. Three of these recommendations had a high level of evidence (GRADE 1±) and four had a low level of evidence (GRADE 2±). No GRADE recommendation could be provided for two questions in the absence of strong consensus.

Conclusions

The experts reached a substantial consensus for several strong recommendations for optimal patient management. The experts recommended phlebotomy reduction strategies, restrictive red blood cell transfusion and a single-unit transfusion policy, the use of red blood cells regardless of storage time, treatment of anaemic patients with erythropoietin, especially after trauma, in the absence of contraindications and avoidance of iron therapy (except in the context of erythropoietin therapy).

Erythropoietin as candidate for supportive treatment of severe COVID-19

In light of the present therapeutic situation in COVID-19, any measure to improve course and outcome of seriously affected individuals is of utmost importance. We recap here evidence that supports the use of human recombinant erythropoietin (EPO) for ameliorating course and outcome of seriously ill COVID-19 patients. This brief expert review grounds on available subject-relevant literature searched until May 14, 2020, including Medline, Google Scholar, and preprint servers. We delineate in brief sections, each introduced by a summary of respective COVID-19 references, how EPO may target a number of the gravest sequelae of these patients. EPO is expected to: (1) improve respiration at several levels including lung, brainstem, spinal cord and respiratory muscles; (2) counteract overshooting inflammation caused by cytokine storm/ inflammasome; (3) act neuroprotective and neuroregenerative in brain and peripheral nervous system. Based on this accumulating experimental and clinical evidence, we finally provide the research design for a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial including severely affected patients, which is planned to start shortly.

Harms of off-label erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for critically ill people

BACKGROUND

Anaemia is a common problem experienced by critically-ill people. Treatment with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) has been used as a pharmacologic strategy when the blunted response of endogenous erythropoietin has been reported in critically-ill people. The use of ESAs becomes more important where adverse clinical outcomes of transfusing blood products is a limitation. However, this indication for ESAs is not licensed by regulatory authorities and is called off-label use. Recent studies concern the harm of ESAs in a critical care setting.

OBJECTIVES

To focus on harms in assessing the effects of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs), alone or in combination, compared with placebo, no treatment or a different active treatment regimen when administered off-label to critically-ill people.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO via OvidSP, CINAHL, all evidence-based medicine (EBM) reviews including IPA and SCI-Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index- Science, BIOSIS Previews and TOXLINE up to February 2017. We also searched trials registries, checked reference lists of relevant studies and tracked their citations by using SciVerse Scopus.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled observational studies, which compared scheduled systemic administration of ESAs versus other effective interventions, placebo or no treatment in critically-ill people.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened and evaluated the eligibility of retrieved records, extracted data and assessed the risks of bias and quality of the included studies. We resolved differences in opinion by consensus or by involving a third review author. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. We used fixed-effect or random-effects models, depending on the heterogeneity between studies. We fitted three-level hierarchical Bayesian models to calculate overall treatment effect estimates.

MAIN RESULTS

Of the 27,865 records identified, 39 clinical trials and 14 observational studies, including a total of 945,240 participants, were eligible for inclusion. Five studies are awaiting classification. Overall, we found 114 adverse events in 33 studies (30 RCTs and three observational studies), and mortality was reported in 41 studies (32 RCTs and nine observational studies). Most studies were at low to moderate risk of bias for harms outcomes. However, overall harm assessment and reporting were of moderate to low quality in the RCTs, and of low quality in the observational studies. We downgraded the GRADE quality of evidence for venous thromboembolism and mortality to very low and low, respectively, because of risk of bias, high inconsistency, imprecision and limitations of study design.It is unclear whether there is an increase in the risk of any adverse events (Bayesian risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93 to 1.21; 3099 participants; 9 studies; low-quality evidence) or venous thromboembolism (Bayesian RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.41; 18,917 participants; 18 studies; very low-quality evidence).There was a decreased risk of mortality with off-label use of ESAs in critically-ill people (Bayesian RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.92; 930,470 participants; 34 studies; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low quality of evidence suggests that off-label use of ESAs may reduce mortality in a critical care setting. There was a lack of high-quality evidence about the harm of ESAs in critically-ill people. The information for biosimilar ESAs is less conclusive. Most studies neither evaluated ESAs' harm as a primary outcome nor predefined adverse events. Any further studies of ESA should address the quality of evaluating, recording and reporting of adverse events.